← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Recluse
Thread ID: 6737 | Posts: 10 | Started: 2003-05-17
2003-05-17 13:36 | User Profile
Freeper-type Pro-Bush rant on CofCC website: [url=http://www.cofcc.org/articles.htm]http://www.cofcc.org/articles.htm[/url] Says Bush is big Second Amendment supporter. Sure he is. We can all see what Bush's immigration policy has done for the RKBA in California. A few more years, a few million more Mestizos sneaking across the border, and the Democrats will have the majority they need to send stacks of gun control bills to Bush for his signature. What will Jorge do then?
2003-05-18 03:10 | User Profile
I do like CofCC, remember they are very mixed lot, and in many ways that is a good thing. So don't bash the whole CofCC over this article. I think some the posters on this forum are members let's see what they have to say. The CofCC Home Page has had article attacking Bush II for being anti-Gun in the Past.
The article shows some very wild wishful thinking.
Conceal-carry laws are a bad thing! I sick of so-called "conservatives" talking about "conceal-carry laws," and how great they are, where to get such permit you are photographed, figerprinted, and registered by the state, is not that just what Sarah Brady and Bill Clinton wanted? "when he(Bush) got into office in Texas as the Governor was to pass a conceal-carry law."
And idea the Bush II stoped the PRC from selling SKS, to keep them from upgrading thier army is just plain stupid! China sells more than they need to fund thier army, with all the other junk they sell. Just walk into any Wall-Mart. I rember those days of $78.00 SKS's and and $150.00 AK-47's at the Gun Stores. That's why we got the import ban. It was Reagan that gave less red tape on ammo and mail order ammo, without forms not Bush I. But even that law had problems, it had the machine gun ban in it. And Reagan then told Bush I to pass the Brady bill, which Bush did not do. The GOP is always ready to sell out gun rights. Evan if Bush does want the AWB to sunset, He should come out and say he wanted to die and he will veto it if congress passes it, he said it is a good law and needs to be saved!
**Pelican People
R.A. Hawkins
I have come to the conclusion that we are surrounded by a bunch of pelican people. What I mean by that isââ¬Â¦well, the size of the mouth in relation to the brain and the butt. Many pseudo conservatives are ranting about the assault weapons ban and Bush supporting it. Give me a break folks. Aren't you some of the same people who complained endlessly about the UN co-opting our national sovereignty? About the UN taking away our guns and how anti-American and anti-gun they are? Then when we finally did what should have been done years ago in Iraq weren't you the same people that whined because we didn't have legitimacy provided by the UN blessing our actions? Grow up and quit listening to the liberal media!
This same group of human pelicans is now ranting about how Bush is going to sell out our rights to the liberals in Congress. I have noticed most of these whiners don't even vote. Their primary contribution is noise and if they do vote they are the type who will write in some unheard of individual named "Phil at the store on the corner in Podunk because he really knows this stuff." They are simply contrary and don't bother thinking anything through adequately before reacting. I would like to first point out that I don't mean to shut anybody up on this issue and I actually expect people to continue to make a lot of noise about Bush signing an extension of the assault weapons ban. But please don't sound so stupid when you do it.
First let's examine what Bush was really doing to the UN. Yes I said to the UN. He didn't necessarily seek their approval. He delivered an ultimatum "Back your words with deeds or get chucked onto the same scrap heap as the League of Nations. They apparently chose the scrap heap and to celebrate it, they had the no pay day in the UN cafeteria where everyone looted the premises when the cafeteria workers went on strike. What has occurred a lot lately is they have shown their true colors. There they were doing in the cafeterias what they are supposed to be out preventing in the world. That does help to explain the make up of some of their silly councils doesn't it? Bush, as he went back each time, drew them out a little further. They over reached a little more and became a little more irrational after each visit. At the same time he managed to draw our fake friends in Europe out into the open. They became more and more vociferous and openly hostile towards us. Once we went into Iraq and began the intelligence gathering, the Euro-trash (France, Russia and Germany) was exposed for being the duplicitous scum they so often are. Suddenly we all knew who our real friends were, and weren't. Chile has found itself on the outs because of their stance on the war. We didn't sign the new trade agreement with them. We did sign one with Singapore which I'm certain didn't make China or North Korea too happy either. Bush exposed our enemies but the pelican people didn't notice. They just continue to display their anatomical anomalies as their matching butts and beaks dither due to an overactive, yet under-sized, brain.
Bush said the assault weapons ban was a good law. There really wasn't any elaboration on that comment either. Did he mean it was a good law because it's going to go away in 2004? One of the first things he did when he got into office in Texas as the Governor was to pass a conceal-carry law. That really sounds anti-gun to me. Many people like to cite that Bush's father passed a law banning the importation of SKS rifles. I suspect the reason he did that was because the Chinese were sending their cheapo guns over here so they could upgrade their own arsenal. At the same time the Chinese were quite aware of who was more likely to buy those rifles at thirty-nine dollars a piece. The same people who are buying all of the communist propaganda and can't hold a job, that's who. When Bush forty-one left office I was actually able to buy about all the Ammo I wanted with no questions asked. Prior to he and Reagan I had to fill out a form whenever I bought ammunition. Now you can mail order it and that is something that goes back to the Bush forty-one administration. The Clinton administration was the one that tried to tax weapons and ammo into nonexistence. When that didn't work they tried to legislate from the bench. During that time a whole new generation was created which didn't trust the government at all. Those types have failed to notice that Clinton is gone for now. They have also forgotten that it is in the second term that things, and I mean really big things, get done.
What I see and hear now is a bunch of pelicans trying to control the GOP to make it bend to their childish little time table of "I want it now or I'm taking my toys and going home." Both the Anti-gun control crowd of, which I'm a proud member, and the religious right suffer from this same childishness. Rather than set their sites on a few obstacles in Congress who are obviously against them, they set their sites on Bush who is trying to work around said obstacles. With allies like that, Bush doesn't need any enemies. Never mind the fact that Bush is trying to appoint judges that will follow the Constitution instead of killing it. If we didn't have a bunch of dummy judges legislating from the bench we wouldn't have such a mess right now. Those corrupt judges are what the radical left has used to undermine the Constitution.
In case nobody has noticed there is quite a fight on the hill over that very subject. The usual lefties are fighting every appointment. They should be run out of office in the next election but I bet a lot of the pelicans will be looking at Bush instead of the obstructionist radical left wingers in Congress. Some pelicans are claiming their voters will not vote if they don't get their way. The radical lefties will thank you for your support by sitting it out. That is exactly what they want you to do. That was why Feinstein and Schumer congratulated Bush on his stance. They were giving him the same support that the gallows rope gives the hanged. That is a Stalinist ploy by the way. Let it not be said we don't have our own Jackson and Sharpton-like idiots on the right. We obviously do. Honestly what do you think the likelihood is of Congress passing an extension and putting it on Bush's desk? That is what he said he would agree to by the way. If they put it on his desk to sign he will sign it. He knows that won't happen so it is a safe comment to make.
All I have to say to you pelican people out there is go ahead rant and rave all you want. Like the pelican, it is a bit difficult to tell what part of your body is running the show. Please try to pay attention to history. Don't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. You could also spend a little time learning what the Hegelian Dialectic is. Once you learn what it really means you might understand what Bush is actually doing a lot of the time. Liberals and the media have been doing it to you for years. Spend some time learning their tactics.
(The Hegelian Dialectic is a concept wherein a concept is co-opted through consensus. Two opposites, thesis and antithesis are merged and a synthesis occurs. Eventually the co-opting principle wins out and the opposition is gone. A good example is the media openly backing Bush on the war and then only showing negative coverage. They give the appearance of supporting him because that is safe. Eventually they convince enough people through lies and omission that Bush was wrong in starting the war. They don't do it themselves. They show only what is needed and the public begins to make that choice. Pretty soon the ignorant create a groundswell of idiocy and the media wins but they look surprised because they were, after all, supportive. The reason the old media hates the new media is they have to work a lot harder because we can get out on the internet and find the truth. So sad!)
Comments are always welcome. Please send them to R. A. Hawkins . **
2003-05-18 10:43 | User Profile
Thanks AY and Faust for your comments. AY, the standard freeper argument is that Bush is a liar, that he's just pretending to support the AWB extension because he knows that a pubbie congress won't send one to him to sign. Laying aside the fact that that's a sleazy way to operate, it's also risky. If the Dems should happen to retake the House and Senate in 2004, and Dubya gets reelected, he'll either have to betray his base or be exposed as a fraud.
As to the CofCC, I believe that to preserve the Second Amendment, and our way of life period, you have to preserve a White majority. That's Racial Reality 101. I've seen zero evidence that Bush feels the same way, in fact it appears that he's doing everything he can to make Whites a minority in the US as quickly as possible, and it's just a mystery to me, with this and his support for gun control and his weaseling on AA and his pandering to non-Whites, that there's so much support for Bush coming from some in the CofCC leadership.
2003-05-18 19:27 | User Profile
I used to correspond with a top CofCC guy. I stopped that because he never mentioned the varmint root of America's problems -- squeak, squeak. All he talked about was immigration and such.
Half of all CofCC types listen to Rush Limbaugh. That about says it all...
[ps -- note new URL below: Israel timeline]
2003-05-19 17:55 | User Profile
Keep in mind that the CofCC webpage is just one guy who puts whatever he feels like. The CofCC leadership has nothing to do with the page.
Having made political webpages from 1995-2002 myself, I have learned that the internet is not all it's cracked up to be. For one it takes a huge amount of effort to get people to come to your site and the people who are recruited from the internet tend to be misfits and wankers. Believe me I have some stories!
The CofCC recieves about one new member a week from CofCC.org, which is just enough to keep the page up but not enough to warrent the attention of the CofCC leadership.
Most CofCC member are over 40 and could care less about the internet all together.
P.S. I don't think very many CofCC members are Limbaugh fans. At least none of the leadership. I don't know a single person that likes Limbaugh. The CofCC has some local personalities that it supports in the South (some of whom are members).
2003-05-20 02:22 | User Profile
Originally posted by heritagelost@May 19 2003, 11:55 **Keep in mind that the CofCC webpage is just one guy who puts whatever he feels like. The CofCC leadership has nothing to do with the page.
Having made political webpages from 1995-2002 myself, I have learned that the internet is not all it's cracked up to be. For one it takes a huge amount of effort to get people to come to your site and the people who are recruited from the internet tend to be misfits and wankers. Believe me I have some stories!
The CofCC recieves about one new member a week from CofCC.org, which is just enough to keep the page up but not enough to warrent the attention of the CofCC leadership.
Most CofCC member are over 40 and could care less about the internet all together.
P.S. I don't think very many CofCC members are Limbaugh fans. At least none of the leadership. I don't know a single person that likes Limbaugh. The CofCC has some local personalities that it supports in the South (some of whom are members).**
This post wasn't really about the internet, it was about the support for dubya in the CofCC leadership. I know it exists because I listened to their radio program the week before the 2000 elections and both hosts, one regular host and one guest host, Gordon Baum was out of town if memory serves, supported George Bush, and just recently I tuned in and heard one of the hosts say that he trusts dubya when Jorge says that the war against Iraq is necessary. The Jews in Bush's DOJ are out [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=5&t=7976]rounding up White racialists[/url] and there are people in the CofCC still supporting this clown? Do they think that this ADL controlled administration will leave them alone once it gets done with the National Alliance types? They need to spend more time on the net. That's one of the reasons, Franco named the other one, why I let my membership expire.
2003-05-20 05:08 | User Profile
This most recent episode is just another in an endless list of examples proving that genuine conservatism simply does not exist in the states in any organizational sense. If what few remaining genuine conservatives that still exist whish to be any thing other then despondent voyeur watching their former nation's descent into third world savagery they absolutely must stop supporting people and groups that lack the courage and understanding to resist the forces of national destruction in the name of a practicality that is 95% capitulation and zero institutional power. One can either pretend that the institutions run by our enemies can be retaken via groveling before the current order at the voting both and a bygone society restored inspite of demographic reality until literally nothing worth defending remains. The alternative is that they can embrace a genuine conservatism at the expense of propasphere approval and get serious about real world community activism and stand a fighting chance when the current order faces a systemic crisis. You owe your descendants something more then the continued support of those that often help or at best fail to resist the forces of destruction.
2003-05-20 17:52 | User Profile
Most CofCC member are over 40 and could care less about the internet all together.
Or 70, based on some of the pictures I've seen. No offense, Ed. CofCC was once recommended to me as a "responsible" racialist organization, maybe it is. I just don't see much dynamism there. Anyone think it's worth it to join? It's not like we've got a smorgasboard of options. "Gee, three White nationalist groups right here in my own neighborhood! How will I chose?"
2003-05-20 18:02 | User Profile
Originally posted by Hugh Lincoln@May 20 2003, 12:52 It's not like we've got a smorgasboard of options. "Gee, three White nationalist groups right here in my own neighborhood! How will I chose?"
This dovetails with the most recent [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=7&t=7992]Sam Francis article[/url] I just posted.
Like yourself, I don't see any dynamic in the CofCC. Freedom of Association is supposed to be constitutionally protected here in the States. It would be an interesting experiment to try and test it by forming professional white-male only social clubs in your respective local communities and neighborhoods. Perhaps some already exist, I don't know.
2003-05-20 19:33 | User Profile
I don't think that any worth while racial or paleocon groups exist in the states with the exception of the very new American branch of the ITP. While it hasn't done much of anything yet it at least has a viable ideology and strategy for building activist cadres. I am unsure that Americans have the willingness to actually do anything to save their country so I am unsure if the AITP will go any where.
What we come back to yet again is the need for public activism. I wrote an article at VNN on the subject which has been well received and I will put up two more articles on the matter this week. Some info. along those lines can be seen at Polinco and the method described does in fact work very well but it seems that wishing for some magical systemic collapse and glorious yet efortless revolution provided by others is the prefered wish so i'm not holding my breath on this one.